Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Things I never thought I would write (2)

Hot on the heels of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Julie Bindel steps out, pausing only briefly to pour a little well-deserved scorn on the sister hood for having dithered about the veil for years. Then she gets down to it:

the niqab has nothing whatsoever to
do with freedom or choice. The drive for its acceptance comes from male
hardliners who have no concept of liberty and who use women as a means
of extending their power.

Cleverly,
they exploit the fashionable western language of ‘anti-discrimination’
to achieve this end. Anyone who calls for a ban on the burka or the
niqab can often find themselves conveniently branded culturally
‘insensitive’ or ‘racist’.

I believe the goal of such
men is cultural totalitarianism, not the freedom for people to express
their faith through the way they dress. Veiled women have become a sort of human shield in the advancement of the Muslim fundamentalist agenda.

This is Bindel, in the Daily Wail, and she is getting some support in the comments. Never was such times.

I think the point that she is trying to make is that a niqab is not in the same ideological space as, say, a Venetian opera mask because part of its meaning is submission.

The nearest item I can think of is a dog's collar. People can, and do, wear them to play the arty-farty game of 'why is this different to a 3-strand pearl choker?' The answer is: it is a dog collar and part of its meaning is that a dog must submit to its owner's will.

The niqab is not purely about personal choice because it always displays this subjection to another authority with an aggressive sub-text "you have to submit too".